Comments Thread For: Top Six Unchanged, Haney Debuts: BoxingScene Competition Index October Update

[aboutfkntime]

It's not a P4P list. It's a Competition Index.

If a guy isn't fighting tough opposition then the numbers are going to reflect that. The numbers don't care about "eye test" or people's feelings.

call it whatever you want.....


it is going to look pretty stupid if Crawford beats Spence.... which is highly likely


what will they do.... add him back on the list in the number 1 spot ?


when you take a irrational position, and are immediately forced to crawl up your own ass and reverse that irrational decision.... it means you had no idea what you were doing, because your system is highly flawed






...

[ShoulderRoll]

It's not easy to look like the best ranking authority in the world when you exclude the best fighter from your P4P list because maths told you to






...

It's not a P4P list. It's a Competition Index.

If a guy isn't fighting tough opposition then the numbers are going to reflect that. The numbers don't care about "eye test" or people's feelings.

[aboutfkntime]

The list ranks who is facing the toughest opposition.

It's easy to look like the best fighter in the world against easy opponents.

It's not easy to look like the best ranking authority in the world when you exclude the best fighter from your P4P list because maths told you to






...

[ShoulderRoll]

...






so..... the guy who is probably the best fighter in the world, does not even make the top 10 ?

you cannot box-by-numbers, this is not a maths game

mathematical scoring systems simply do not work, how can anyone not be aware of that ???

a board room discussion > vote > decision.... is far more accurate, and the only method that could work






...

The list ranks who is facing the toughest opposition.

It's easy to look like the best fighter in the world against easy opponents.

[tkoboxingscene]

How clenelo, Taylor, and nomachenko make it I to any too list this year shows how clownish and bias these platforms are.

[aboutfkntime]

For a rigid system that misses out on context and nuance, this is about as good as it gets and is more accurate than inaccurate. But there are numerous instances where this can have flawed results, such as overt robberies, where a preponderance or vast majority of the public saw the other guy win. Then there are losses to unranked fighters who might be better fighters than some of the ranked ones (not that it happens very often). I could go on but I think I'll end this with a question: How the hell is Jermall Charlo in the top 30 here? Seeing as how this list puts a premium on recent activity, Jermall hasn't fought in almost two years and counting, and his last fight was against a guy not highly ranked. I don't quite understand that. I'll have to look more closely later.

but, no system can be both of those things

a system cannot be.... " as good as it gets ".... if there are.... " numerous instances where it can have flawed results "

if any business uses a system that produces " numerous instances where it can have flawed results ".... that system is considered to be a total failure, and would be removed/replaced immediately

you can't box-by-numbers.... you just can't

e.g.

The Ring religiously used lineage to rank fighters.... but that shltty system fell apart a few years ago.... back when Adonis Stevenson was ranked number 1 at light heavyweight for beating " the man ", despite the fact that Kovalev would have been highly favored to win that fight.... and back when Canelo was ranked number 1 at middleweight for beating " the man ", despite never weighing more that 155, and despite never fighting a genuine middleweight opponent.... that was absurd, everyone knew that Golovkin was ranked number 1 at middleweight

lucky for The Ring they dumped that ranking-by-lineage nonsense.... or they would have a tricky time explaining the Lomachenko > Lopez > Kambosos > Haney nonsense.... they would have had Kambosos ranked at number 1, despite not being a top 5 lightweight






...

[Cypocryphy]

For a rigid system that misses out on context and nuance, this is about as good as it gets and is more accurate than inaccurate. But there are numerous instances where this can have flawed results, such as overt robberies, where a preponderance or vast majority of the public saw the other guy win. Then there are losses to unranked fighters who might be better fighters than some of the ranked ones (not that it happens very often). I could go on but I think I'll end this with a question: How the hell is Jermall Charlo in the top 30 here? Seeing as how this list puts a premium on recent activity, Jermall hasn't fought in almost two years and counting, and his last fight was against a guy not highly ranked. I don't quite understand that. I'll have to look more closely later.

[aboutfkntime]

...






so..... the guy who is probably the best fighter in the world, does not even make the top 10 ?

you cannot box-by-numbers, this is not a maths game

mathematical scoring systems simply do not work, how can anyone not be aware of that ???

a board room discussion > vote > decision.... is far more accurate, and the only method that could work






...

[ShoulderRoll]

Number 1 on the competition index AGAIN.

That tells you no one in the sport is fighting tougher opposition than Canelo.

It's good to see Jermell Charlo ranked so high, and Naoya Inoue not in the top 10. Those are well deserved rankings for both fighters in my opinion.

[Citizen Koba]

I like that they got a consistent scoring system at least, same can be said for Boxrec - up to a point it does lessen subjectivity, but obviously can't be free of it altogether since the scores also rely on subjective rankings from third parties too. It remains an interesting project and at the very least a starting point for further discussion.

Nonetheless it's probably about comparable to Boxrec in terms of how much the results align with my own personal (very loose) rankings of the current elite talent pool. ie - not very close at all.